2012 Sprocket Point Season Summary

Time to dust off my old friend – Sprocket Points. (If you don’t know what Sprocket Points are, take a look at the bottom of this post for a quick explanation.) I’ve taken a look at the regular season production of players and done some rankings. Let’s start with the best. The table below ranks players across teams and positions by total Sprocket Points. There are also ranks for several other measures.

· SP Rank – rank of players by total Sprocket Points – a pure measure of total productivity

· SP/Game Rank – rank of players by Sprocket Points per game – takes out the impact of injuries

· SP/36 Min – rank of players by Sprocket Points per 36 minutes – takes out the impact of varying amounts of playing time

· SP Share – rank of players by the share of total team Sprocket Points he accounts for – a measure of the importance of the player to his own team

The remaining tables rank players by position. I’ve ranked by Sprocket Points per game to take out the impact of injuries and shown the top thirty players. At the bottom of each table I’ve listed the best ranking Pistons players. Pistons are shaded.

Centers – Monroe ranks 7th among centers, pretty much neck and neck with Cousins. Ben Wallace even in limited minutes comes in 31st. If Ben could be persuaded to come back, and if he maintained the same level next year, a Monroe / Wallace center rotation puts the Pistons in very good shape.

Power Forwards – The Pistons don’t fare so well here, with no players in the top thirty. Jerebko and Maxiell are neck and neck in positions 43 and 44. Either would make a very good four off the bench, but neither should be starting. And of course, you don’t really need two. Keep the young one and move Max.Small Forwards – Good old steady Prince, coming in 19th place. Yeah, no superstar, but good enough for the three spot to be way down the list of priorities for Joe D. Daye and Wilkins are serious also rans, barely cracking the top 60 in places 55 and 57. Maybe JJ can backstop both the four and three spots and Daye and Wilkins can be sent packing.

Shooting Guards – Very nice year from Stuckey, cracking the top ten among shooting guards. Get him healthy and let him do his thing. And let Gordon continue to back him up. Thirty-four is a pretty good rank for a backup two, especially given that he had one of his worst years. If Knight improves, the Knight / Stuckey / Gordon rotation looks solid for a few years to come.

Point Guards – Knight has a very long way to go, with the best players showing twice the level of productivity. But perhaps, not shabby for a rookie. He’s got to be a lot better though if the team plans to turn it around next year.

For the Pistons the holes are pretty clear.Point Guard – The jury is out on Knight, not back for a rookie, but he needs to work very hard this summer. If he improves though he’ll be strong for many years. With a clever three guard rotation Stuckey ought to be able to fill in the backup PG role.

Shooting Guard – Good, solid rotation. Nothing to do here.Small Forward – Leave Prince alone and let him do his thing. But mostly find someone to back him up. JJ?Power Forward – Gaping hole. Got some nice backups though.Center – Very solid. If Ben retires, then either Max backs up Monroe or the team finds a backup.

Sprocket Points – Sprocket points weight and combine fourteen commonly available statistics. The weights are based on estimates of the points created for the player’s team or taken from the opponent from each statistic. For example, a steal provides a possession to your team and an opportunity for a shot. It also takes away an opportunity for a shot from the opposition. So, a steal is valued at 2 * 0.975 or 1.95 points. 0.975 is the average number of points created by a shot in the NBA.

Sprocket Points – Sprocket points weight and combine fourteen commonly available statistics. The weights are based on estimates of the points created for the player’s team or taken from the opponent from each statistic. For example, a steal provides a possession to your team and an opportunity for a shot. It also takes away an opportunity for a shot from the opposition. So, a steal is valued at 2 * 0.975 or 1.95 points. 0.975 is the average number of points created by a shot in the NBA.

Click to expand...

Interesting stat, no doubt. Has a few holes though, and I can smell some logical fallacies

On the steal example, I think that your system double counts the value by giving credit for an additional offensive possession. After all, if you would have just let the other team score, you'd get that possession anyway. You wouldn't count the value of a matador defensive strategy as -2.0 for the opponent and +1.0 for you = -1.0

To boil it down to a very simple example:

Say that a basketball game was 48 seconds long and each team used up all of their shot clock before shooting (at a 50% rate).
Example 1:
Team A takes 24 seconds and shoots and gets 1 point
Team B takes 24 seconds and shoots and gets 1 point
TIE GAME

Example 2:
Team A takes 10 seconds and the ball gets stolen- 0 points
Team B takes 24 seconds and shoots and gets 1 point
Team A takes the remaining 14 seconds and shoots and gets 1 point
TIE GAME

In this example, the steal did not result in an additional benefit (but it would have had some benefit if the FG percentages would be adjusted for reality).

The offensive efficiency after a steal is probably higher than normal because they tend to lead to fast breaks. This is why most regression analysis systems put a value of 1.3-1.5 on steals. 1.0 of that is due to the defensive stop (the expected value of their possession was 1.0 before it was thwarted) and the 0.3-0.5 is thought to be due to the increased efficiency on the ensuing offensive possession (increased the 1.0 value that the team had coming anyways to 1.3 to 1.5). The range of values is because a steal was more valuable for some teams... say the run and gun Warriors than it was for the 2004 Pistons. The Warriors had a lesser chance of getting a defensive stop otherwise and they used the steal to a greater advantage on offense.

TaShawn covered my biggest problem - which is a steal ~ .975 based on non scored points by the opposition.

I understand the reasoning behind it, but it smells off. Firstly, because of the increased offensive efficiency of a play off of a steal which is not accounted for by the metric (and is accounted for in similar weighted metrics), and secondly, because a stop =/= point scored.

Whilst TaShawn's example is perhaps oversimplified, the underlying logic is correct. In a majority of cases, can you measure the net outcome of a single event, ceteris paribus. Yes, there needs to be assumptions, but these need to be backed up by sound reasoning, which I am unsure exists here.

Also, let me clarify - the results are interesting. I am not saying the data is wrong, just that IMO it is logically flawed.